Amy Coney Barrett Loves Liberty and America


Justin Smith examines Amy Coney Barrett as a nominee to SCOTUS. If Judge Barrett is as devoted to the Constitution as she claims, supporters purport and critics fear; then she might be one instrument to preserve the Founding Fathers’ American Republic.

 

Amy Coney Barrett (photo- 2017 via ND Law School)

 

JRH 9/29/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products.

******************************

Amy Coney Barrett Loves Liberty and America 

Amy Coney Barrett May Reshape [Save] America’s Society

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 9/26/2020 10:39 PM

 

Judge Amy Coney Barrett was officially nominated by President Donald J Trump on September 26th 2020 (4:06 PM CST), to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Ruth Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court, a move that was anticipated days in advance by both critics on the left and the right of the political spectrum. Whatever the criticisms, she isn’t a “John Roberts” in skirts or a “statist” as portrayed by some of her conservative critics. More conservative than Roberts or Kavanaugh either one, a Catholic and a mother of seven children, Coney Barrett is an Originalist and a Textualist when it comes to reading the U.S. Constitution, and she will be a staunch defender of individual liberty, from this position on the highest court in the land, once she is confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

 

[Blog Editor: Originalism and Textualism in the Scalia/Barrett perspective:

 

 

 

 

President Trump offered this glowing nomination, [JOS] stating: “Today it is my honor to nominate one of our nation’s most brilliant and gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court. She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials, and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution, Judge Amy Coney Barrett.” As Ms. Barrett stood at his side, in the Rose Garden, classy and poised, he also offered, “I looked and I studied, and you are very eminently qualified.”

 

Wasn’t it poignant to witness Amy Coney Barrett (ACB) nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court on the 34th anniversary of her mentor Justice Antonin Scalia’s swearing in ceremony to the Supreme Court? It was wonderful and beautiful to see Maureen Scalia in the company of the gathered guests, for this momentous occasion.

 

In October 2017, Amy Barrett’s nomination to the federal court was confirmed by a vote of 55 to 43 to the 7th Circuit Court. Her confirmation actually received the affirmative support of Democratic Senators Joe Manchin (WVA), Tim Kaine (VA) and former senator Joe Donnelly (IN), but now, with so important an opening at stake, the Democrats have once more found a reason to become unreasonable to the point of being unhinged on this matter, since they are trying to force Senator Mitch McConnell to wait until after the election, offering every disingenuous and falsely premised excuse under the sun.

 

Does anybody really believe if the situation was reversed that Democrats would refrain from seating the nominee of their choice, for any reason they chose? I think not.

 

Judge Amy Coney Barrett thanked the President and accepted the nomination with these words: “I am deeply honored by the confidence you have placed in me. I fully understand that this is a momentous decision for a President and if the Senate does me the honor of confirming me, I pledge to discharge the responsibility of this job to the best of my ability. I love the United States and I love the United States Constitution. I am truly humbled by the prospect of serving on the Supreme Court.”

 

That’s music to our ears. Finally, someone in a high government position says “I love the United States” out loud and unashamedly.

 

Ms. Barrett added: “I clerked for Justice Scalia more than twenty years ago but the lessons I learned still resonate. His judicial philosophy is mine too. A judge must be resolute and setting aside any policy views they might hold.”

 

On September 23rd, Representative Mike Johnson (LA) wrote an opinion piece for Fox News, that stated, in part: “Amy has been respected her whole life as a person of the highest moral integrity, and she has all the qualities that America needs and deserves in a Supreme Court Justice. She is brilliant, principled, hardworking, strong, and gracious. She reveres the Constitution, adheres to an originalist philosophy, and teaches and practices the importance of judicial restraint.”

 

No one can pretend that most of the hostility America currently sees aimed at Coney Barrett comes from the anti-American, anti-God, anti-Life Socialists and Marxists of the Democratic Party, who are intent on making certain the Supreme Court continues to stray from its proper constitutional role and also in making Barrett’s confirmation as incendiary an event as possible, because at the heart of this fight lies Roe v. Wade and the conjured and non-existent abortion “right”. These leftists want another Ginsburg type judicial activist, the sort that initially swept away the laws of fifty states in 1973 and trampled on the most basic fundamental human right, without any justification in the text, original understanding, logic or historical precedent within the Constitution. And, as the bottom line for the Democratic Party, especially its current presidential nominee, Joe Biden, any Supreme Court nominee must pledge fealty to this unconstitutional ruling.

 

[Blog Editor: From a rule of law perspective (AND there is a Will of God perspective), Roe v. Wade was an egregious use of Judicial Activism creating law that according to the Constitution is the job of Congress:

 

 

 

 

Virtually every objection from the Leftist Democrats of Congress center on Amy Coney Barrett’s Catholic faith and the fact that she is the mother of seven children who holds the view that abortion is “always immoral”, and she has a clear anti-abortion record, from her three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, having already ruled to restrict access to abortions in two separate cases. Along with her expressed openness to severely limiting, or perhaps even ending, Roe v. Wade, if confirmed, Judge Barrett will consolidate the conservative majority and shift the balance of power on the court decisively towards a more conservative trend, shaping the American society for decades to come.

 

In October 2015, Judge Barrett signed a joint ‘Letter to Synod Fathers From Catholic Women’, in which [JOS] she affirmed “the dignity of the human person and the value of human life from conception to natural death”, and in January 2013, [JOS] she spoke of her own conviction that “life begins at conception.” It’s not hard to imagine her helping create a majority on the Court that eventually will overturn Roe v. Wade, possibly through an expanded view of what may legally constitute a “person” and all the rights that are associated with it.

 

During the September 6th 2017 Senate confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett, despite Article VI of the Constitution forbidding the disqualification of anyone due to their religious convictions, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Judiciary Committee’s ranking Democrat, dove right in with a vicious attempt to impugn Ms. Barrett, as she told Barrett that “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern … .”

 

Barrett pointedly and firmly responded: “I see no conflict between having a sincerely held faith and duties as a judge. I would never impose my own personal convictions upon the law.”

 

In an email to CBS News, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List — an anti-abortion group, gave high praise to Judge Barrett, stating: “She is the perfect combination of brilliant jurist and a woman who brings the argument to the court that is potentially the contrary to the views of the sitting women justices.” [Blog Editor: Breitbart found the quote to the NYT. After finding that, I didn’t look for the CBS sourcing.]

 

Ultimately, having graduated magnum cum laude from Rhodes College in Tennessee and summa cum laude from Notre Dame Law School, with the highest honors, she is extraordinarily qualified given the record of her career. She has litigated constitutional, commercial and criminal cases in both trial and appellate courts, as an associate at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in D.C., and she has taught law at the University of Notre Dame Law School, since 2002. Her appeal and standing as a woman of highly great intellect who is well qualified to assume a seat on the Supreme Court is further bolstered by the fact that she also clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative Justices on the Supreme Court before his death.

 

In 2017, Barrett described Chief Justice John Roberts’ ruling on the Affordable Care Act as something that went beyond its plausible meaning, differentiating it as a “tax” rather than a penalty, in order to save it. Barrett has also written that Supreme Court precedents aren’t sacrosanct, and the Marxist illiberal Democrats have taken that as a threat to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that gave legitimacy to abortion “laws” nationwide.

 

In June 2020, Judge Barrett was the only dissenter regarding the ruling that blocked federal enforcement of President Trump’s public charge immigration law in Illinois. Immigrants were prevented by this law from gaining legal residency in the U.S., if they relied on the welfare system, i.e. food stamps and housing vouchers, and it changed who was considered a “public charge” under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

 

By and large, once one fully assesses and analyzes Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s decisions and rulings, one finds that she isn’t quite the government shill some would portray her as being. Just look at U.S v. Dimitris Terry (Feb 14th 2019), U.S. v David Watson (Aug 17th 2018), U.S. v Mandy L. Hagen (Jan 2nd 2019), U.S. v. Dandre Moody (Feb 7th 2019), and Alondous Briggs (Mar 27th 2019). These are cases where Barrett was skeptical of the government’s arguments, as it tried to put individuals in prison, but her record does present a mixed-bag of sorts, since at times, she has also rejected claims by defendants and prisoners that her colleagues found credible; in other words, she does the best she can to give the most accurate and true ruling possible, based on her own experience and wealth of legal knowledge.

 

With a Fourth Amendment violation at the heart of U.S. v. David Watson, Barrett concluded that an anonymous tip did not provide reasonable suspicion for police to stop a car driven by a man with a felony record in possession of a firearm. She noted: “The anonymous tip did not justify an immediate stop because the caller’s report was not sufficiently reliable. The caller used a borrowed phone, which would make it difficult to find him, and his sighting of guns did not describe a likely emergency or crime — he reported gun possession, which is lawful.”

 

However — as I mention that I’m no lawyer but I do tend to research several layers deeper than most and I’m extremely conservative —  many other conservatives have taken a fallacious understanding of Barrett’s recent ruling and mischaracterized her act of joining the majority in [JOS] Illinois Republican Party et al. v. J.B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois, regarding the size of crowds allowed at political functions at the time, as “(allowing) Democrats to rip up the Constitution under the guise of safety”. I would urge everybody to read the full text of the actual ruling, while noting that Kavanaugh rejected the Illinois Republican Party’s argument first. Judge Barrett did take the disappointing maneuver of erroneously (in my opinion), hiding behind the Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) ruling, but as she notes, basically, the Illinois Republican Party made a flawed and erroneous argument of their own and have no one to blame but their own legal team. But, one might also note, that recently, Western District of Pennsylvania Judge William Stickman rejected Jacobson as any argument for upholding the lockdown orders of Governor Wolf.

 

Daniel Suhr of the Liberty Justice Center argued the party should receive the same exemption as religious groups, because religious and political speech rights “live at the heart of the First Amendment.”

 

Judge Barrett stated that it might be different, they had argued that the governor didn’t have the authority to make the order, but in this narrow scope, if the governor’s group-size limits exempted movements such as Black Lives Matter protests that have been conducted over the duration of his executive order, “you’re talking apples to apples, you’re talking political speech to political speech, and it’s the same right at issue. But here, the exception that’s been carved out for churches isn’t just speech to speech, it’s not apples to apples. It’s speech plus free exercise against speech.” She further noted that the First Amendment somewhat treats free speech and free religious exercise “a little bit as apples and oranges”, since they’re separated into two distinct categories.

 

U.S. Circuit Judge Amy St. Eve concurred with Barrett, as she noted that the Republican Party’s argument left the court wondering where it would draw a line distinguishing First Amendment rights about political speech from First Amendment rights “about some other cause.”

 

Professor Stephen Yelderman, a longtime friend and colleague at Notre Dame, recently noted: “… people are reducing Amy to an ideological category instead of taking her for who she is — an intelligent, thoughtful, open-minded person.”

 

In her closing statement as she accepted the nomination, Judge Amy Coney Barrett gently and humbly offered: “It is important at a moment like this to acknowledge family and friends. But this evening, I also want to acknowledge you, my fellow Americans. The President has nominated me to serve on the United States Supreme Court, and that institution belongs to all of us.

 

If confirmed, I would not assume that role for the sake of those in my own circle, and certainly not for my own sake. I would assume this role to serve you. I would discharge the judicial oath, which requires me to administer justice without respect to persons, do equal right to the poor and rich, and faithfully and impartially discharge my duties under the United States Constitution.”

 

Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a true American who loves our country, just as much, if not more, than most Americans, and she has carried herself as an impeccable, honorable and consummate professional. Her love of liberty for all Americans, along with her body of work offer the proof that she will absolutely rule on cases based on the text of the Constitution as written, and in the process, she won’t hesitate to hold the government and its officials’ feet to the constitutional fire, as a serious jurist and a superb Supreme Court Justice. Not since the day Justice Antonin Scalia was sworn into the Supreme Court on September 26th 1986 has there been a Justice of such a high caliber presented to the Court, and no American should doubt that she is qualified, as most who have followed her career rest assured that she will bring a much needed refreshing esteem and renewed sense of honor to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

By Justin O. Smith

________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets are by the Editor. Except where indicated by “JOS”, embedded links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Ramirez: I Think it was Kavanaugh Who Waved His Penis in My Face


John R. Houk

© September 24, 2018

It is very apparent that Christine Blasey Ford will not be able to substantiate her accusation of rape by Judge Brett Kavanaugh when he was 17 and she was 15. So what do the desperate Dems do? They find another woman with an even sketchier memory than Ford’s who claims sexual assault by waving his penis in front of her face when Freshmen at Yale.

 

So says the memory of a then drunken Deborah Ramirez at a drunken dorm party.

I haven’t had the chance to digest all the facts on the Ramirez accusation yet, ergo below are a couple of posts from relatively Conservative sources (because I don’t trust lame-stream media sources and because I know Dems lie).

 

JRH 9/24/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

*******************

JUDGE SEX CLAIMS 

Who is Deborah Ramirez? Brett Kavanaugh’s Yale University classmate who accused him of sexual misconduct

 

By Nicola Stow

September 24, 2018 3:57 pm

The Sun

 

Who is Deborah Ramirez?

 

Deborah Ramirez, 53, was raised a “devout catholic” in Connecticut, according to the New Yorker.

 

She and Kavanaugh were classmates at Yale, where she studied sociology and psychology. the pair graduated in 1987.

 

According to NBC News, Deborah is a board member and volunteer at Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence, an organisation that helps domestic abuse victims.

 

She currently lives in Boulder, Colorado. READ THE REST

+++++++++++++

Yes, Let’s See The Emails That Led To Deborah Ramirez’s Accusation Against Kavanaugh

 

By ALLAHPUNDIT

Posted at 1:31 pm on September 24, 2018

Hot Air

 

Stop Kavanaugh Protestor

 

Here’s how the New Yorker described Deborah Ramirez’s journey towards speaking up:

 

She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away…

 

Mark Krasberg, an assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of New Mexico who was also a member of Kavanaugh and Ramirez’s class at Yale, said Kavanaugh’s college behavior had become a topic of discussion among former Yale students soon after Kavanaugh’s nomination. In one e-mail that Krasberg received in September, the classmate who recalled hearing about the incident with Ramirez alluded to the allegation and wrote that it “would qualify as a sexual assault,” he speculated, “if it’s true.”

 

Emails? Tell us more about these emails, Jane Mayer:

 

 

Read the excerpt above again. After 35 years of uncertainty, within the span of six days, Ramirez somehow recovered her memories sufficiently to accuse a Supreme Court nominee of having sexually assaulted her. And coincidentally, this memory recovery appeared to happen only after her classmates had begun emailing about Kavanaugh’s time at Yale following his nomination this summer. At some point, by Ronan Farrow’s own admission, Senate Democrats got involved in the process.

 

Robert VerBruggen raises a very obvious possibility: “These emails would appear to be important evidence regarding how this ball got rolling. They also may bear on the question of whether Ramirez’s memory closely matches the anonymous source’s simply because they’re both the account that was circulating while Ramirez was putting her memories together and contacting her former classmates. Let’s see them.” Yeah, let’s. Let’s see if it was Ramirez or someone else who first identified Kavanaugh as the person who assaulted her. Let’s see just how many gaps in Ramirez’s memory required filling in by others, seemingly not one of whom actually witnessed the incident. Let’s find out how many second-hand or even third-hand “witnesses” were needed to help the victim herself “remember.”

 

The New York Times spent a lot of time looking for first-hand witnesses over the past week. No dice:

 

The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

 

This sure sounds like a case of someone’s hazy memory being reshaped after the fact through the power of suggestion. Ramirez may have remembered that someone did something lewd to her once at a Yale party along the lines of what she described to the New Yorker and then gradually became convinced that it was Kavanaugh after classmates told her “I heard from a friend of a friend at the time that it was Kavanaugh.” Or maybe it was less innocent than that: One person who spoke to the New Yorker told them that they thought Ramirez’s accusation “may have been politically motivated,” albeit without hard evidence. Imagine how much suggestive power a plea from someone attached to Senate Democrats in a high-stakes confirmation battle might have had on the memory of a person who’s inclined for ideological reasons to support Democrats anyway.

 

Ramirez isn’t the only person connected to the New Yorker piece whose credibility is shaky. I can’t imagine what Ronan Farrow was thinking attaching his name to such a journalistic sh*tpile, lacking not only even one first-hand witness to the incident but saddled with a victim whose memory he has every reason to believe is unreliable. He and Jane Mayer seem fully aware that the story is garbage too, per their careful framing of Ramirez’s accusation. It’s not that it’s true or even probably true, you see, it’s that Democrats are interested in it:

 

What a shrewd way to launder a smear into “news.” Investigate it privately, leak to the New Yorker that you’re investigating it, then cite their report that you’re investigating it privately as evidence of its seriousness, worthy of yet another delay in the confirmation vote. If you asked me yesterday to name five big-name non-Fox mainstream reporters who are broadly respected on the right, I would have told you “Jake Tapper, Ronan Farrow, and uhhh…” That’s a testament to how compelling Farrow’s #MeToo reporting over the past year has been: Even credentials like a stint on MSNBC and time spent working for the Obama administration weren’t enough to spoil all the credibility he earned among right-wingers from his reporting on Weinstein, Eric Schneiderman, and Les Moonves. The scariest words any Republican heard over the last week were “Ronan Farrow is looking into this” because you know what that usually means — he has the goods. Multiple accusers, in all likelihood, and even if not, at least multiple examples of contemporaneous corroboration from a single accuser. Instead he produced Deborah “I think it happened, but maybe not” Ramirez. The New York Times wouldn’t publish her claim, so thin was it. But Farrow would.

 

I don’t think his motive here was primarily partisan, although he obviously leans left. Weinstein and Schneiderman were both Democratic power players and he had no qualms about nuking them from orbit. More likely he and the New Yorker decided to lower their standards because the hunt for a second Kavanaugh accuser is the hottest story in America right now. Ramirez was under some form of pressure (intentional or not) from her classmates, it seems, to confirm that Kavanaugh was the man who assaulted her. But Farrow was under pressure too. He owns this beat. He’s the reporter everyone is looking to for the smoking gun that Kavanaugh really is a sleaze. And the clock is ticking. It’s possible that the Judiciary Committee will vote to confirm Kavanaugh this week, which wouldn’t close any window on accusations against him but might very well close the window on public interest in the matter. Under normal circumstances, Farrow and Mayer would have kept the story in a drawer and spent the next few weeks talking to sources while they tried to substantiate Ramirez’s claim. Instead the two of them and the New Yorker threw what they had at the wall, replete with some ass-covering “to be sure” qualifiers. Maybe Kavanaugh did something to Ramirez, but maybe not — but maybe! Ask yourself: What possible reason could there have been to rush this half-baked story into print apart from either (a) trying to monetize intense public interest in a topic with whatever you have available, or (b) derailing Kavanaugh’s nomination? Are either of those reasons conducive to good, responsible journalism?

 

Here he is this morning defending the report. He has enough home runs already as a reporter that one strikeout in a big spot won’t damage his general reputation but Republicans will probably never look at him the same way.

 

 

++++++++++++++++

KAVANAUGH AND LAST-MINUTE ACCUSATIONS

Democrats pull out all the stops.

 

By Joseph Klein

September 24, 2018

FrontPageMag.com

Brett Kavanaugh

 

Democrats are pulling out all the stops and enabling salacious last-minute accusations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh in order to sink his candidacy. Now that Christine Blasey Ford has finally agreed to testify this Thursday at an open hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding her charge that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a long-ago high school party, these new charges have suddenly emerged from left field.

 

On Sunday, a former classmate from Judge Kavanaugh’s time at Yale accused the Supreme Court nominee of exposing himself to her at a party. The New Yorker has just published an article written by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer, based on information that was reportedly sent to at least four Democratic senators. The article recounted a claim by Deborah Ramirez, a Yale classmate of Brett Kavanaugh’s, concerning “a dormitory party gone awry.” As the article acknowledged, however, “her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident.” The article goes on to say that in her initial conversations with The New Yorker, Ms. Ramirez was “reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.” It was only after “six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney” that Ms. Ramirez was suddenly able to pinpoint Judge Kavanaugh as having committed an unsavory act, even though she admitted being “foggy” at the time. The New Yorker article also noted that the magazine “has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.”

 

Meanwhile, the ever-present Michael Avenatti, attorney of porn star Stormy Daniels, tweeted that he had information from anonymous sources that Judge Kavanaugh and his friend had “targeted” women with drugs and alcohol at parties to facilitate “gang rape.”

 

Haters of Judge Kavanaugh are turning the process of Senate confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee into something worse than a travesty. His opponents in the Senate have transformed their “advise and consent” function into a campaign of no-holds barred character assassination.

While Judge Kavanaugh weathers these latest accusations, which he adamantly denies, his real test will be on Thursday, assuming that Christine Blasey Ford will follow through on her agreement to testify at an open hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Her attorneys stalled for a week before making the announcement that Ms. Ford would testify despite certain “unresolved” issues. Among the issues Ms. Ford’s attorneys have raised was the refusal of the committee to subpoena one of the purported witnesses, Mark Judge, who Ms. Ford reportedly claims was involved in the alleged incident, as well as “who on the Majority side will be asking the questions, whether senators or staff attorneys.”

 

A week has already gone by since Ms. Ford went public with her story in an interview with the Washington Post while Ms. Ford and her attorneys stalled for time. They raised one procedural issue after another while claiming that the committee majority was “bullying” Ms. Ford. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-I) has bent over backwards to accommodate Ms. Ford’s preferred scheduling for her appearance. He extended the deadline several times for her to come to a decision on whether to testify at all. He had offered various options for her to testify publicly or privately or to be interviewed by committee staff in her home state of California, whichever setting would make her more comfortable. However, in Senator Grassley’s e-mail thanking Ms. Ford for finally agreeing to a time certain for her testimony, Senator Grassley correctly reminded her attorneys that “the committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, and what order to call them and who will question them. These are nonnegotiable.”

 

While the negotiations with Ms. Ford’s attorneys for her testimony were underway, Democrats were sitting on the latest allegations, ready to pounce as soon as Ms. Ford’s accusation was about to be heard. Some Democrats are already using the Ramirez episode to push anew for a fresh FBI investigation and to postpone Thursday’s scheduled hearing.

 

Ideally, if the Democrats cannot apply enough pressure to force a withdrawal of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination through their relentless campaign of character assassination, they want to push any Senate votes until after the midterm elections at the earliest. Then they will claim that the newly elected senators should be involved in the confirmation decision. In the meantime, Judge Kavanaugh’s adversaries in the Senate, the mainstream media and progressive circles continue to bludgeon Judge Kavanaugh in the court of public opinion. All of their stratagems are an obvious attempt to buy time in order to persuade any wavering senators that Judge Kavanaugh is too tainted by sexual assault charges – whether proven or not – to sit on the Supreme Court.

 

Proof does not matter to those wanting to bring Judge Kavanaugh down at any cost. Regarding Ms. Ford’s accusation, they know that the proof so far is non-existent, aside from Ms. Ford’s own assertions contained in her confidential letter given to Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, last July, and in her Washington Post interview. While a redacted version of Ms. Ford’s letter has been published, Senator Feinstein has refused to date to give even Senator Grassley a copy of the completely unredacted version. The FBI has already conducted 6 background checks, no federal crime is alleged, and there is no forensic evidence to investigate after 30 years at a site that Ms. Ford cannot even identify.

 

What we do know so far tends to undercut the credibility of Ms. Ford’s accusation. Ms. Ford cannot corroborate her decades-old charge of sexual assault against Judge Kavanaugh. Whatever corroboration Ms. Ford was hoping for from “witnesses” she claimed were at the alleged party is non-existent. The individuals she reportedly named in her unredacted confidential letter given to Senator Feinstein have either denied being at such a party or do not recollect what Ms. Ford has alleged. Moreover, by her own admission to the Washington Post, Ms. Ford “said she does not remember some key details of the incident.” She does not remember, for example, where it happened, how the party came together in the first place, or how she got home after the alleged incident. She believes the alleged incident occurred during the summer of 1982, but reportedly could not be more precise on the day or even the month of the party.

 

Afraid that Ms. Ford’s sexual assault allegation could be readily challenged and anxious to establish some sort of pattern of sexual misconduct beyond this single alleged incident, the Kavanaugh haters have latched onto Ms. Ramirez’s story.

 

The New York Times published an op-ed column last week by a psychiatrist, Richard A. Friedman, who cited neurological science to conclude that Ms. Ford’s claim that she has “a vivid memory of an attack that took place when she was 15” is “credible.” The reason, he wrote, is that “memories formed under the influence of intense emotion — such as the feelings that accompany a sexual assault — are indelible in the way that memories of a routine day are not.” The only problem with Dr. Friedman’s thesis is that Ms. Ford has apparently forgotten such key details surrounding the alleged sexual assault as when and where it happened and how she got home. Moreover, when Ms. Ford finally told someone about the incident in any detail some 30 years later in 2012, during a couples therapy session with her husband, she did not name Judge Kavanaugh specifically, according to the therapist’s notes that Ms. Ford had provided to the Washington Post in connection with her interview. The Washington Post reported that the therapist’s notes it reviewed “do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students ‘from an elitist boys’ school’ who went on to become ‘highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.’”

 

Ms. Ramirez’s story is even less credible. It took an attorney and six days of very belated reflection to help revive her memory of an incident she claimed happened while she herself was very drunk.

 

Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), one of Judge Kavanaugh’s fiercest critics who told men to “shut up” regarding Ms. Ford’s allegations, said she doubts Judge Kavanaugh’s credibility because of “how he approaches his cases.” Aside from mischaracterizing the constitutional textualist reasoning underlying Judge Kavanaugh’s opinions, she is saying that she does not believe Judge Kavanaugh’s denial of the sexual misconduct allegations lodged against him because of the opinions he wrote that she does not like. Such circular “reasoning” would be amusing if it were not so emblematic of what one writer called “Kavanaugh Derangement Syndrome. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is also suffering from the same syndrome. She said Thursday regarding Ms. Ford: “I believe her because she is telling the truth and you know it by her story.”

 

Ms. Ford’s supporters are exploiting the “Me Too” movement to declare Judge Kavanaugh guilty simply because Ms. Ford is a woman who has made what they call, without any corroborating evidence to date, a “credible” charge. The same would presumably be the case for Ms. Ramirez. They argue that since the Senate Judiciary Committee is not a criminal judicial trial, but rather a legislative hearing for confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee, the normal burden of proof shouldered by the accuser should not apply. Judge Kavanaugh should have to prove that he is not guilty, they are in effect insisting. This is another case of Kavanaugh Derangement Syndrome.

 

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the normal burden on the prosecution in a criminal case – to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – is not applicable regarding the charge against Judge Kavanaugh since he is not a defendant in a criminal trial. However, that should not flip the burden of proof onto Judge Kavanaugh altogether. Judge Kavanaugh is being subjected to charges of a criminal nature that could not only deprive him of a seat on the Supreme Court for which he is otherwise eminently qualified. Ms. Ford’s unsubstantiated accusation can completely destroy Judge Kavanaugh’s life by causing irreparable damage to his reputation for integrity and good character and to his career, which he has built up during decades of public service. His family’s lives have been completely upended. Placing the burden on Judge Kavanaugh to prove that he was not involved in an uncorroborated incident from years ago, about which even his accuser does not recall key details, turns the fundamental constitutional principle of due process upside down. Ms. Ford should have the burden to prove her accusations by at least a preponderance of all the evidence presented.

 

This charade must come to an end. No more extensions for Ms. Ford to come forward and testify. If Ms. Ford does not follow through with her agreement to testify in an open Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this Thursday and do so upon the conditions set by the committee, she should go home while the committee proceeds to an immediate vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. If Ms. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh do testify, the senators deciding on whether to confirm Judge Kavanaugh as well as the American public following the testimony must remember one cardinal rule. In a nation guided by fairness and law, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Sadly, many of Judge Kavanaugh’s haters have thrown that rule aside.

 

If Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled as a result of the smears and character assassination, President Trump should immediately nominate someone on his short list such as Amy Coney Barrett and the Senate Republican majority should then push through the new nominee’s confirmation as soon as possible. Delay is not an option.

 

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.

++++++++++++++++++++

Critics condemn New Yorker over uncorroborated Kavanaugh story: ‘Lazy at best, slimy at worst’

 

By Brian Flood

September 24, 2018

Fox News

 

The New Yorker’s sketchy report that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh may have exposed himself to a college classmate decades ago has media critics asking if the prestigious magazine cares more about getting a story or getting it right.

 

The article, headlined “Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from the Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years,” was co-bylined by Pulitzer Prize winner Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer. It details a claim by Debbie Ramirez, who said Kavanaugh sexually harassed her during a Yale University party.

 

Yet, beneath the story’s explosive thesis lie substantive seeds of doubt and a complete lack of corroboration that prompted howling from a chorus of media critics.

 

 

 

 

 

“It’s worth noting that Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer could not confirm ‘with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.’ It’s also worth noting that this disclaimer was buried to the ‘10th paragraph’ of the Deborah Ramirez report. Lazy at best, slimy at worst,” Mediaite columnist Joseph Wulfsohn wrote.

 

National Review editor Charles C.W. Cooke penned a column calling the piece “grossly irresponsible,” which slams The New Yorker for publishing the story.

 

“I am struggling to remember reading a less responsible piece of ‘journalism’ in a major outlet,” Cooke wrote. “There is no scaffolding beneath this story.”

 

Jedediah Bila wrote that she is typically a fan of Farrow but his latest report is “not good journalism.”

 

“New Yorker piece doesn’t even confirm that Kavanaugh was at the party, contains an admission of memory gaps by Ramirez due to intoxication, and has numerous people on the record disputing her claim. Once again, I’m awaiting facts: evidence, corroboration, possible testimony,” Bila wrote.

 

The story has been criticized for admitting a lawyer spent six days assessing Ramirez’s memory, failing to confirm Kavanaugh actually attended the party, burying the fact that the New Yorker couldn’t confirm the story with witnesses and relies on decades-old hearsay.

 

“Ronan Farrow, Jane Mayer and the New Yorker ran with a story where the accuser still, today, right now, can not say that the person she is accusing actually is the one who did what she is alleging. IS THAT NUTS,” New York Post columnist Karol Markowicz wrote in a series of tweets mocking the story.

 

“The New Yorker piece is a terrible piece of journalism and it really seems like Farrow and Mayer know it,” Markowicz wrote. “I can’t remember the last time I was this angry about something in politics. This is disgusting.”

 

“I have no words for how sickened I am by how the left and the establishment media are weaponizing non-credible sexual assault claims to destroy a human being,” Daily Caller media editor Amber Athey tweeted.

 

Syndicated radio host Dana Loesch questioned if Farrow — who helped launch the #MeToo movement with his reporting on disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein – was given a byline to add credibility to the report. Erick Erickson echoed Loesch, saying the piece doesn’t live up to Farrow’s pristine reputation.

 

“All of these New Yorker stories about Kavanaugh seem as if they’re Mayer stories that Farrow was added to for credibility. Because they’re not up to his standard sourcing. Hell, they’re not really even sourced,” Erickson wrote.

 

Washington Examiner chief political correspondent Byron York sarcastically noted that the latest allegation “has it all.”

 

“Accuser was drunk. ’Significant gaps’ in her memory, recovered recently with help of lawyer. Memories fuzzy all ’round. Some say never happened. Accuser ‘never described incident until Brett’s SCOTUS nomination,’” York wrote.

 

While many of the piece’s critics are conservative pundits, several mainstream media members have also questioned the report. “CBS This Morning” co-host Gayle King asked Mayer if she was ok knowing that Ramirez admitted that she had gaps in her memory from the night in question.

 

 

 

“The story is very transparent about what she does and doesn’t remember,” Mayer insisted.

 

The CBS morning show further pressed Mayer, and Fox News contributor Stephen Miller called the exchange “embarrassing” after co-host Norah O’Donnell tweeted a clip.

 

The New York Times wasn’t as comfortable as Mayer, Farrow and The New Yorker — admitting it couldn’t find anyone with firsthand knowledge of the claim.

 

“The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge,” the Times wrote in a story that followed the New Yorker report. “Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”

 

“So it was too shaky for the New York Times, but The New Yorker went with it. Very telling,” Fox News’ Britt Hume wrote.

 

Pundit Steve Cortes wrote that the “sham” story “couldn’t even meet the low standards” of the Times.

 

Despite all the criticism the story has received, Farrow and Mayer spent Monday morning defending their work with a variety of media appearances.

_____________________

Ramirez: I Think it was Kavanaugh Who Waved His Penis in My Face

John R. Houk

© September 24, 2018

___________________

Yes, Let’s See The Emails That Led To Deborah Ramirez’s Accusation Against Kavanaugh

 

Copyright HotAir.com/Salem Media. All Rights Reserved.

___________________

KAVANAUGH AND LAST-MINUTE ACCUSATIONS

 

© COPYRIGHT 2018, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

 ____________________

Critics condemn New Yorker over uncorroborated Kavanaugh story: ‘Lazy at best, slimy at worst’

 

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2018 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

[Blog Editor: In full disclosure I did not seek permission from Fox. That portion of this post will be removed upon request.]